Reacting to Prof. Reid’s over-reaction

October 15, 2015

A few weeks ago Abp. John Myers of Newark issued a brief letter underscoring some basic expectations for Catholics in the midst of our increasingly secularized culture, things like, oh, ‘Catholics who publically reject Church teaching should not approach for holy Communion’, and ‘Catholic facilities should not be made available to persons attacking Catholic beliefs’. Myers’ letter is pretty ordinary stuff, remarkable, if at all, only in that so few bishops issue admonitory letters these days.

Now, a couple of phrases in Myers’ letter do, I think, warrant closer parsing (something expressly provided for in Myers’ letter), and there is even one ‘Doh!’ sentence in the prelate’s letter: “Catholics must be in a marriage recognized as valid by the Church to receive Holy Communion”. This, if true, would be bad news for my five youngest children, none of whom are “in a marriage recognized as valid by the Church” (or any kind of other marriage). Such a slip should not appear in a letter written by a canon lawyer, let alone in one vetted by several others. But, c’mon, we all know what Myers’ meant and, having enjoyed a chuckle over his phrasing, I planned no comment on the letter.

But then I read Prof. Charles Reid’s (a respected historian of canon law) reactionto Myers’ letter. Reid excoriated Myers’ letter as “insanely, hysterically overreaching” and claimed that, if it were followed, “even a football coach who loudly swears after a close loss or a parent who attends their gay son’s wedding would be barred from seeking Communion.” Setting aside the laughable disparity between the two supposedly Communion-disqualifying acts Reid offers (more on that below), my first reaction to Reid’s over-reaction was “Good grief! Did Abp. Myers write two different letters?” Of course, Myers wrote only one letter—the dull, not perfect, but basically routine letter I had read. What Reid read, however, what to him “looks petty [and] vengeful [and] a dying gasp if you will,” what Reid “can’t imagine a bishop doing” a few years from now, what Reid actually thinks was intended as a direct challenge to Pope Francis himself (!), I can hardly guess. It is certainly not Myers’ letter, and I am at a loss to account for Reid’s startling over-reaction to it.

Well, as long as we are here, let’s do look at two phrases in Myers’ letter that, I think, need further study.

1. Myers writes: “Non-Catholics and any Catholics who publicly reject Church teaching or discipline, either by public statements or by joining or supporting organizations which do so, are not to receive the Sacraments.” A few points: (a) Catholics may always approach the Sacrament of Confession, something so obvious Myers did not need to restate it; (b) Non-Catholic participation in holy Communion is regulated largely by Canon 844 and it would have been better simply to refer to this norm; (c) Catholics who “publicly reject Church teaching or discipline” are to refrain from holy Communion per Canon 916 and the moral tradition which that canon summarizes, but, as to whether one’s joining an organization “opposed” to the Church (Canon 1374, anyone?) is, by itself, always gravely sinful, or about what constitutes “support” for such an organization, these are good questions best addressed in concrete cases. Myers’ brief reiteration of the principles involved in these cases does not, by his own acknowledgement, settle such practical questions (thus he directs those with questions about such matters to consult appropriate ecclesiastical authorities). So, whether Prof. Reid or I would have phrased this passage as Myers did is beside the point: the archbishop’s language here has hardly descended into the realm of ‘insane hysterical over-reaching’ and it is an injustice for anyone to claim that it has.

2) Myers writes: “Catholics, especially ministers and others who represent the Church, should not participate in or be present at public religious events or events intended to endorse or support those who reject or ignore Church teaching and Canon Law.” Perhaps this passage is what set off Reid’s eruption about potty-mouthed football coaches (which is so gross a caricature of Myers’ message that it needs no refutation) and, more significantly, his supportive comment about parents attending their gay son’s ‘wedding’.

Note first, it is Reid, not Myers, who raises the whole ‘gay wedding’ scenario, and, while Myers urges his pastors to explain difficult cases to the faithful “in appropriate ways, privately if possible”, it is Reid who engages in a public media tirade. The contrast between the two approaches could not be starker.

But, let there be no mistake: in Western culture, to attend a wedding (pace the I’ve-never-heard-of-it-but-it’s-theoretically-possible scenario wherein someone attends a ‘wedding’ but sits in the back row and offers rosaries in reparation for the affront that the ceremony might be), to attend a wedding, I say, is to offer public support for the actions of the two persons supposedly marrying. Thus I hold that a Catholic’s attendance at a ‘wedding’ believed to be invalid, such as a ‘same-sex wedding’, is itself an objectively gravely sinful act, and thus something forbidden to Catholics, even if one is related to the parties. Sometimes Christianity costs. More than once—need I say it?—Church history has been sprinkled with the blood of Catholics martyred because they would not accept a ‘wedding’ that was plainly forbidden by the law of God. Is the price they paid in their day so unthinkable among us in ours?

Now, Myers did not advise parents who have been invited to attend their child’s ‘same-sex wedding’, but I am pretty sure I know what his advice would be. Suddenly, however, we have to wonder what Reid’s advice would be regarding conduct by which, per Canon 209, one must preserve communion with the Church, here, in regard to a fundamental teaching rooted in natural law and divine revelation.

Bottom line: If Myers did not put all of his points perfectly (and he did not), he certainly put them plainly. Scholars should endorse what is sound (i.e., most of the letter), and help clarify what is deficient (as Myers himself notes). Avoiding over-reacting to the letter would be a good way to start.

Gratianus: Iuris Pater Canonici

Edward Peters, JD, JCD, Ref. Sig. Ap.

Dr. Peters has held the Edmund Cdl. Szoka Chair at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit since 2005. He earned a J. D. from the Univ. of Missouri at Columbia (1982) and a J. C. D. from the Catholic Univ. of America (1991). In 2010, he was appointed a Referendary of the Apostolic Signatura by Pope Benedict XVI. For more infomation on Dr. Peters, see CanonLaw.Info.

Disclaimers and Acknowledgements

1. This blog represents my views and not necessarily those of other individuals or institutions with whom I might be associated.

2. I strive to present my opinions in a manner consistent with the values expressed in Canon 212 § 3, but final judgment on that rests with competent ecclesiastical authority.

3. In commenting on current events, I draw only on reports as they appear in publicly-available sources.

4. I fix obvious textual errors or infelicities of expression in my posts promptly (even if an email version has already gone out on it), but after a few hours, I either leave the text in place or clearly mark amendments as amendments.

5. Most translations of the 1983 Code are taken from the CLSA revised translation (1999, and largely available here); all translations of the 1917 Code are mine.

Christ among the Doctors

Hoffman (1926) shows lawyers in the four stages of their careers learning from the boy Jesus.

Would St. Thomas More blog?

I still haven’t made up my mind whether I shall publish it all. [S]ome people are so humorless, so uncharitable, and so absurdly wrong-headed, that one would probably do far better to relax and enjoy life than worry oneself to death trying to instruct or entertain a public which will only despise one’s efforts, or at least feel no gratitude for them. Most readers know nothing about [canon law] – many regard it with contempt [and] find everything heavy going that isn’t completely lowbrow. . . . Some are so grimly serious that they disapprove of all humor. . . Others come to different conclusions every time they stand up or sit down. . . . They seize upon your publications, as a wrestler seizes upon his opponent’s hair, and use them to drag you down, while they themselves remain quite invulnerable, because their barren pates are completely bald, so there’s nothing for you to get hold of. (Thomas More to Peter Gilles, 1516)

St. Raymond Penyfort, op (1175-1275)

St. Raymond composed the Quinque Libri Decretalium from 1231 to 1234. His text provided the organizing principles of canon law for nearly seven centuries until the promulgation of the Pio-Benedictine Code in 1917.

Hmm…

A political wag once remarked that the fastest way to start a ruckus on Capitol Hill was to point out what the Constitution actually says. It seems that something similar may be said about what happens in the Church when someone points out what the Code of Canon Law actually says.

Good advice from Cdl. Burke

The first thing I would tell a student of canon law is, canon law is not for the faint of heart !

More good advice from His Eminence:

“The too rapid growth of practice without a clear and solid theoretical foundation has its most serious consequences in the confusion regarding the very foundations of law”. Burke, Lack of discretion of judgment (1986) at 85.

Despite what others might say, I don’t

• know everything there is to know about canon law (although I know quite a lot);

• think every issue in the Church is canonical (although many more ecclesiastical issues are canonical, or can be usefully assessed from a canonical perspective, than most folks realize);

• have access to inside information (although I have been in Church work for some 35 years and have picked up a few things along the way);

• think bishops are always right (or always wrong, or are always anything, for that matter, except Successors to the Apostles);

• think Vatican II was the end of the Church (or that it was the greatest event since Pentecost);

• have authority to enforce canon law (although I write, in part, to encourage sound enforcement of, or compliance with, canon law by those under its authority);

• think the West is doomed (although it faces some tough times ahead and needs Christ more than ever).

Follow this blog via email

Besides the RSS and Twitter options above, you can follow this blog by Feedburner. Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Note that these e-mailed versions of my blog posts go out very quickly (indeed, it seems, instantaneously), but sometimes they contain typos or other obvious errors that I don't catch until I can see the posted version, as noted above (DA 4). I regard the versions posted here as representative of my thoughts.

Why comments aren’t enabled here

I have thought about enabling comboxes on my blog for some time. My reasons for declining at present are:

First, open comboxes are notorious occasions for grave sin (calumny, detraction, falsehood, even blasphemy). I won’t have it here, of course. But that leaves only monitored comboxes, and monitoring comboxes takes time—more time than I have and certainly more time than I wish to devote to, well, monitoring comboxes. Of course, if someone comes up with a way for me to get paid for monitoring comments, I’m open to reconsidering—my children are always screaming for more caviar and diamonds.

Second, the purpose of this blog is not primarily to air my, let alone others’, opinions (itself a legitimate purpose, of course) so much as it is to educate people on an important yet complex area of Christian life, namely, the operation of canon law. This is not to imply that I don’t express my opinions on various matters, even less is it to claim that everything I post is the only way to view XYZ, but rather, to underscore that most of what this blog does is explain the canonical aspects of issues in the news. I know of no other site in cyberspace that does that, and I think such a specific focus is a good thing.

Now the kind of education offered here can take place quite well, I think, without entertaining questions (questions that are often ill-formed and/or inappropriate for many others in my audience), and without entertaining comments (comments that, if right, would add little to what I already said, and if wrong, would often require considerable time for me correct). It seems better for all concerned if I just post what I think canon law or closely related disciplines say about this matter or that, include some appropriate references for folks to verify my sources, and leave it at that. Time will tell whether my analysis of various issues is, in the main, right or wrong.

Third—and mind, this comes from someone who often posts in others’ comboxes!—I find that combox discussions never really resolve anything; they are effectively interminable in that, no matter how thoroughly one might have answered a question or addressed an issue, there will always be one more bloke out there able to reword the matter in such a way as to suggest that it has not yet been adequately aired. And that is not counting the people who post as breand-new questions things that were expressly dealt with just a few posts higher up! Sheesh! Anyway, I grant that this could just be the lawyer in me talking, but I like it when judges rule (usually correctly) that X is irrelevant so drop it, or that Y has been asked-and-answered so move on, or that the burden of proof in case Z has been satisfied so the matter is closed. No one really performs that kind of service in any combox I've yet seen. Perhaps no one can.

Anyway these are some of the reasons why I haven’t enabled comboxes on this site. Perhaps another canonist will start a blog that does allow comboxes. If so, I’d be happy to go over and post comments there!

Best, edp.

Another hmm…

A professional knows the limits of his knowledge. An amateur does not know the limits of his knowledge. A dilettante does not know that there are any limits to his knowledge.

Ex aliis

• Sometimes I think Ed Peters is just using his knowledge to tell us things we don't already know.

• Peters is a perfect example of how celibate old men in the Vatican think.

• Huelga decir que el trabajo de Edward Peters es sumamente útil.

• A Protestant would never say things like what he says.

• Peters obviously has no idea what it costs to raise a child these days. True, but I have some idea as to what it costs to raise six.

• Il est un éminent canoniste Anglophone.

• I see people disagree with Peters, but they almost never have a reason, except they don't like what he said.